What does this have to do with the preceding argument? Yes, the company could abandon the project, but the concern here is about them taking all the previous work (including volunteer contributions) and proceeding with a more restrictive commercial license; that's what we want to prevent.

> the concern here is about them taking all the previous work

Not unless they retroactively change the license on said previous work, which I'm pretty sure they cannot.

I haven't looked into GameMaker's license specifically, but many projects require a copyright assignment as part of their contributor license agreement.

that allows relicensing of the combined work moving forward, not retroactive relicensing of already released code.

That's indeed what I meant, apologies if I was unclear.

Nobody wants to guarantee perpetual future labor. The guarantee we want is that if there's future labor, then we want the fruits of it to remain FOSS.

The concern is not about free labor, the concern is that the product I'm building might get killed by vendor deciding to just fuck me over. Whether the software is free (as in beer or freedom) or not is a secondary concern - I'm merely noting that even a license as strong as AGPL is not a guarantee that I won't get fucked.

It is, though? All that is required is that you're allowed to maintain your own fork. Which is guaranteed to you, in perpetuity, by the AGPL.

How's Linux 2.6 going?

Still working fine? You can run Linux 2.6 just fine on the hardware it supports and even backport newer features you want.